Drizuz Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) As to the first matter (TPF's aggression against Athens/Ragnarok) - Point 1:We consider TPF to have attacked Athens/Ragnarok. We consider anyone who declares on TPF's side to be the aggressors, and Athens/Ragnarok to be fully justified in defending themselves via military conflict against TPF. We consider anyone who declares on Athens/Ragnarok's side to be the defenders. This includes those whose declarations have multiple degrees of separation from the initial conflict. Point 2: We will not support TPF's aggression, nor any who support it. This point will also follow multiple degrees of separation. Point 3:We will defend any allies who enter this conflict defensively. So that there is no ambiguity, that means on the defensive side of the war (see point 1). Point 4:We will not allow any of our allies to be destroyed, even those who foolishly choose to enter on the aggressive side (see point 1). So that there is no ambiguity, this means we will vigorously pursue quick, fair, and light peace terms for our allies who foolishly choose to enter on the aggressive side, and we will back those negotiations with force of arms. As to the second matter (Ragnarok's aggression against IRON/NSO/NATO/GC) - Point 1:We consider Ragnarok to have attacked IRON/NSO/NATO/GC. We consider anyone who declares on Ragnarok's side to be the aggressors, and IRON/NSO/NATO/GC to be fully justified in defending themselves via military conflict against Ragnarok. We consider anyone who declares on IRON/NSO/NATO/GC to be the attackers. This includes those whose declarations have multiple degrees of separation from the intitial conflict. Point 2: We will not support Ragnarok's aggression, nor any who support it. This point will also follow multiple degrees of separation. Point 3:We will defend any allies who enter this conflict defensively. So that there is no ambiguity, that means on the defensive side of the war (see point 1). Point 4:We will not allow any of our allies to be destroyed, even those who foolishly choose to enter on the aggressive side (see point 1). So that there is no ambiguity, this means we will vigorously pursue quick, fair, and light peace terms for our allies who foolishly choose to enter on the aggressive side, and we will back those negotiations with force of arms. In conclusion - The sum total of what all of you have posted, said in channels, and in queries is one of the most insanely idiotic things we have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent disertations were any of you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on Planet Bob is now dumber for having listened to it. We award you no points, and may Admin have mercy on your soul. Signed, SynthFG, Executor Drizuz, Praetor Ramirus Maximus, Judicator Edited January 2, 2010 by Drizuz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramirus Maximus Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.” - Albert Einstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabonnobar Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) This makes my head hurt, actually. Edited January 2, 2010 by rabonnobar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Nice Megabyte quote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ptricky Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Finally some sound logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 At least one voice of clarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Spying may be a cause for war, but it has never been the case that it starts a war and counts as aggressive. Do you consider Athens to have been in a defensive war with TPF for five months? You've taken a leaf right out of the Hegemony's playbook with your semantic games to recast aggression as defence, and I am disappointed in you. Your consistency is admirable, but being consistently wrong is less so. I do, however, agree with the last paragraph wholly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Thank you, Grämlins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Point 1:We consider TPF to have attacked Athens/Ragnarok. We consider anyone who declares on TPF's side to be the aggressors, and Athens/Ragnarok to be fully justified in defending themselves via military conflict against TPF. We consider anyone who declares on Athens/Ragnarok's side to be the defenders. This includes those whose declarations have multiple degrees of separation from the initial conflict. Point 1:We consider Ragnarok to have attacked IRON/NSO/NATO/GC. We consider anyone who declares on Ragnarok's side to be the aggressors, and IRON/NSO/NATO/GC to be fully justified in defending themselves via military conflict against Ragnarok. We consider anyone who declares on IRON/NSO/NATO/GC to be the defenders. This includes those whose declarations have multiple degrees of separation from the intitial conflict. What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Good to see you guys speaking again. I have missed you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisK Owns You Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Very classy guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulmar Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Point 1:We consider Ragnarok to have attacked IRON/NSO/NATO/GC. We consider anyone who declares on Ragnarok's side to be the aggressors, and IRON/NSO/NATO/GC to be fully justified in defending themselves via military conflict against Ragnarok. We consider anyone who declares on IRON/NSO/NATO/GC to be the defenders. This includes those whose declarations have multiple degrees of separation from the intitial conflict. I feel like you mean to say attackers here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vend3tta Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 You should make your position more confusing. This was far too simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Diesel Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Ouch, BJ. That hurts. Also, glad someone else caught the Megabyte reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believland Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) Reading the entire OP helps, I've heard Edited January 2, 2010 by Believland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Maybe its because im tired but this announcement says you are, essentially, going against Citadel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaarlaamp Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Is this a DoW on TPF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabioviejo Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Gee thanks Grämlins, now my head hurts................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Unbiased and impartial, very nice. Thats a serious neck on that guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgrum Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 o/ Gramlins! I liked this part the best The sum total of what all of you have posted, said in channels, and in queries is one of the most insanely idiotic things we have ever heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Taylor Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I don't really know what to make of this... maybe we'll find out tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavii Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) Simple and understanding eh?. Can't say I disagree, but I am slightly biased in this matter. Edited January 2, 2010 by Xavii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeScepter Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 i'm too drunk to make sense of any of this so i'll just say "good job" and give you a hug. also i lol'd at the picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicalTrevor Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Spying is an agressive act. A good stance from my friends with the Grämlins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuromancer7 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I truly fail to understand how treaties are being applied in such cases to sides of conflicts. Treaties are individual and discreet contracts between one alliance and another alliance unless written specifically apply some other way. While I have ambivelent feelings towards the path you have chosen Grämlins. I do have to congratulate you on choosing said path clearly and without any ambiguity and in such a way that nobody can misunderstand your intentions. And Clarity of Communication I will hail. o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.